Reviewer Link

Peer Review Process

HEUTAGOGIA: Journal of Islamic Education employs a rigorous double-anonymous peer review process to ensure the quality, relevance, impartiality, confidentiality, and integrity of scholarly evaluation. Every manuscript first undergoes an initial editorial assessment to determine its conformity with the journal's aims and scope, author guidelines, ethical requirements, originality standards, and minimum scholarly quality. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected before external peer review.

Manuscripts considered suitable for external review are assigned to an Editor who serves as the Handling Editor for the manuscript. Editors listed on the journal's Editorial Team may be assigned by the Editor-in-Chief to serve as Handling Editors according to their disciplinary or methodological expertise. The Handling Editor coordinates the peer review process but does not have independent authority to make the final publication decision.

Each manuscript proceeding to external review is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise. Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process. Reviewers provide independent scholarly assessments and recommendations concerning the quality, originality, methodological rigor, clarity, relevance, and contribution of the manuscript. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not constitute the journal's final publication decision.

After the reviewers' reports have been received, the Handling Editor assesses the reports and submits an editorial recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. Where reviewer reports differ substantially, are insufficient to support an editorial recommendation, or additional expertise is required, the Handling Editor may invite an additional independent reviewer.

The Editor-in-Chief holds final authority over all publication decisions. After considering the manuscript, reviewers' reports, the author's revisions where applicable, and the Handling Editor's recommendation, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision to accept the manuscript, request minor revision, request major revision, or reject the manuscript.

Revised manuscripts may be reassessed by the Handling Editor and, where necessary, returned to the original reviewers or sent to another independent reviewer. Manuscripts proceed to copyediting, production, and publication only after final acceptance by the Editor-in-Chief.

If the Editor-in-Chief or a Handling Editor has a conflict of interest concerning a submission, that individual must recuse themselves from the editorial process. Editorial responsibility will be assigned to another qualified and independent editor in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics Statement.

Mission

Our mission is to uphold excellence, fairness, rigor, and integrity in the peer review process so that every published article contributes meaningfully to the advancement of Islamic education. HEUTAGOGIA seeks to ensure that scholarly evaluation strengthens the quality of research, encourages intellectual responsibility, and supports constructive academic dialogue.

Vision

HEUTAGOGIA: Journal of Islamic Education is committed to developing an inclusive and internationally engaged community of reviewers whose expertise enriches scholarship in Islamic education. The journal seeks to amplify diverse scholarly perspectives while maintaining high standards of methodological rigor, ethical responsibility, and academic independence.

Values

HEUTAGOGIA values critical, constructive, respectful, and evidence-based feedback. The journal welcomes reviewers from different academic traditions, institutions, professional backgrounds, and cultural contexts who share a commitment to advancing research in Islamic education.

Reviewer contributions are expected to promote scholarly improvement rather than merely judge manuscripts. Reviews should help authors strengthen conceptual clarity, methodological soundness, analytical depth, academic presentation, and the contribution of their work to the field.

Ethics

HEUTAGOGIA maintains strict confidentiality throughout the peer review process. Reviewers must treat all review invitations, abstracts, manuscripts, supplementary materials, editorial correspondence, and review reports as confidential documents. No part of a manuscript or review may be shared, discussed, copied, distributed, or used for personal, academic, professional, or financial advantage without explicit authorization from the journal.

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest and decline assignments when personal, professional, institutional, financial, collaborative, competitive, or other relationships could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, their independence and impartiality.

Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts solely on their scholarly merit and must not discriminate on the basis of nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, religion, ethnicity, political orientation, or other personal characteristics unrelated to the academic quality of the manuscript.

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, supplementary files, reviewer reports, or other confidential editorial materials to public, unauthorized, or non-approved Artificial Intelligence systems. Any use of permitted technological tools must comply with the journal's AI Tool Policy and must never compromise manuscript confidentiality, reviewer anonymity, intellectual property, or editorial integrity.

Reviewers should immediately inform the editorial office if they identify suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, undisclosed conflicts of interest, unethical research practices, copyright concerns, or other potential breaches of publication ethics.

Guidance for Reviewers

This guidance is designed to help reviewers evaluate manuscripts consistently, fairly, constructively, and in accordance with the editorial policies of HEUTAGOGIA: Journal of Islamic Education. Peer review provides the Handling Editor with an independent scholarly assessment and supports the Editor-in-Chief in reaching the final publication decision. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not constitute the journal's final publication decision.

Before You Begin

Before reviewing a manuscript, please make sure that:

You understand the aims and scope of HEUTAGOGIA: Journal of Islamic Education.
The manuscript falls within your area of expertise.
You have no actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect your judgment.
You can complete the review within the requested time.
You understand that the manuscript and all associated review materials are confidential.

If you identify a potential conflict of interest, believe that the manuscript is outside your expertise, or are unable to complete the review fairly and within the requested period, please inform the Handling Editor or editorial office promptly.

First Read Through

Begin by reading the manuscript once for an overall understanding. Consider whether the purpose of the manuscript is clear, the research problem is significant and relevant, the manuscript fits the journal's scope, the main scholarly contribution is identifiable, the work demonstrates sufficient originality, the conclusions are generally supported by the evidence, and there are any major methodological, ethical, or conceptual concerns.

Detailed Review

Title

Does the title clearly represent the content of the manuscript?
Is it concise and informative?
Does it contain important keywords relevant to the study?
Does it avoid unnecessary jargon or overly broad claims?

Abstract

Does the abstract clearly state the research problem or purpose?
Does it briefly explain the methods?
Are the principal findings clearly presented?
Is the contribution of the study identifiable?
Does the conclusion correspond with the findings?
Does the abstract avoid unsupported or exaggerated claims?

Keywords

Are the keywords relevant to the central concepts of the manuscript?
Do they improve the discoverability of the article?
Do they avoid simply repeating words already contained in the title?

Introduction

Is the research problem clearly established?
Is the significance of the study sufficiently explained?
Does the manuscript engage with relevant and current scholarship?
Is previous research critically synthesized rather than merely listed?
Is a clear research gap identified?
Is the contribution of the study clearly positioned within existing scholarship?
Are the research questions or objectives clearly stated and consistent with the problem presented?

For studies in Islamic education, reviewers should also consider whether Islamic concepts are academically contextualized and analytically connected to the educational problem being studied.

Methods

Is the research design appropriate for the research questions?
Is the research setting clearly described?
Is the selection of participants, informants, documents, or other data sources adequately explained?
Are data collection procedures sufficiently described?
Is the analytical procedure clear and appropriate?
Are validity, reliability, trustworthiness, or other relevant quality criteria addressed?
Are ethical considerations adequately reported?
Is sufficient methodological information provided to understand how the findings were produced?

The manuscript should be assessed according to the methodological tradition it uses. Qualitative, quantitative, mixed-method, literature-based, historical, philosophical, and other research designs should be evaluated using criteria appropriate to their respective approaches.

Results or Findings

Do the findings directly address the research questions or objectives?
Are the findings presented clearly and systematically?
Are claims supported by sufficient evidence?
Are quotations, numerical data, documents, tables, or other evidence used appropriately?
Are findings clearly distinguished from interpretation where appropriate?
Are contradictory, negative, or unexpected findings acknowledged where relevant?
Are the findings consistent with the methods described?

Discussion

Does the discussion interpret rather than simply repeat the findings?
Are the findings connected with previous research?
Does the manuscript explain similarities and differences with existing studies?
Are theoretical or conceptual implications adequately discussed?
Does the discussion explain why the findings matter?
Are alternative interpretations considered where relevant?
Is the contribution of the study clearly demonstrated?
Are claims proportionate to the evidence?

For manuscripts addressing Islamic education, the discussion should move beyond normative statements and demonstrate a clear scholarly dialogue between empirical findings, educational scholarship, and relevant Islamic intellectual traditions where appropriate.

Conclusion

Does the conclusion answer the research questions or objectives?
Is it supported by the findings?
Does it clearly state the main contribution of the study?
Are theoretical, educational, policy, or practical implications appropriately stated?
Are important limitations acknowledged where necessary?
Does the conclusion avoid introducing new evidence?
Are recommendations proportionate to the scope of the study?

Tables and Figures

Are tables and figures necessary and clearly presented?
Are titles, captions, labels, and notes understandable?
Are the data consistent with the discussion in the manuscript?
Is information unnecessarily repeated in both the text and tables or figures?

References

Does the manuscript engage with relevant scholarly literature?
Are important studies missing?
Is recent scholarship adequately represented where appropriate?
Are primary scholarly sources used when available?
Are citations relevant to the arguments being made?
Is excessive or irrelevant citation avoided?
Are citations in the manuscript consistent with the reference list?

Reviewers should recommend additional references only when they are genuinely relevant to strengthening the manuscript. Reviewers must not request unnecessary citation of their own publications or publications of colleagues.

Writing Your Review Report

A useful review report normally begins with a brief overall assessment of the manuscript, followed by specific comments that help the authors understand what should be improved. Comments should be clear, specific, constructive, academically justified, respectful, and actionable. Where possible, refer to page, paragraph, table, figure, or line numbers and distinguish clearly between major comments and minor comments.

Major Comments

Major comments concern issues that substantially affect the scholarly quality or validity of the manuscript. These may include an unclear research contribution, inadequate theoretical framework, inappropriate research design, insufficient methodological explanation, major analytical weaknesses, conclusions unsupported by evidence, substantial inconsistencies between research questions, methods, findings, and conclusions, or serious ethical concerns. Reviewers should explain both what the problem is and what revision is required.

Minor Comments

Minor comments concern issues that can be corrected without fundamentally changing the study, such as clarification of terminology, minor inconsistencies, limited improvements to organization, unclear sentences, table or figure corrections, or minor reference problems. Reviewers are not expected to copyedit the entire manuscript. Language comments should focus mainly on problems that interfere with clarity or scholarly meaning.

Reviewer Recommendations

After completing the review, reviewers should select the recommendation that best reflects their assessment. The recommendation should be consistent with the comments provided in the review report. Reviewer recommendations are advisory. After considering the reviewers' reports, the Handling Editor prepares an editorial recommendation for the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief retains final authority to accept, request revision of, or reject a manuscript.

Recommendation	Criteria
Accept Submission	The manuscript is suitable for publication in its present form, with no substantive revisions required.
Minor Revision	The manuscript is fundamentally sound but requires limited corrections, clarification, or improvement before publication.
Major Revision	The manuscript requires substantial improvement before it can be considered for publication. This may involve substantial theoretical, methodological, analytical, or structural revision.
Reject Submission	The manuscript is unsuitable for publication in HEUTAGOGIA, contains fundamental problems that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision, or does not provide a sufficient scholarly contribution.

Editorial Decision Authority

Reviewers provide independent scholarly assessments and recommendations. The Handling Editor coordinates peer review, evaluates reviewer reports, and submits an editorial recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief holds final authority over all publication decisions. Neither reviewer recommendations nor Handling Editor recommendations constitute the journal's final publication decision.

Where there is substantial disagreement between reviewer reports, where reports are insufficient to support an editorial recommendation, or where additional disciplinary or methodological expertise is required, the Handling Editor may invite an additional independent reviewer.

Reviewing a Revised Manuscript

When reviewing a revised manuscript, focus primarily on the issues raised during the previous review. Authors are expected to provide a response to reviewers explaining how each comment has been addressed.

Have the authors responded to all major comments?
Have the promised revisions actually been incorporated into the manuscript?
Have the major scholarly concerns been adequately resolved?
Are the authors' explanations reasonable when they choose not to follow a recommendation?
Has the revision introduced any new substantive problem?
Is the manuscript now suitable for publication?

A revised manuscript should not normally be reviewed as an entirely new submission. Reviewers should avoid introducing new non-essential requirements that could reasonably have been raised during the previous review. If all substantive concerns have been resolved, reviewers should indicate that the revisions are satisfactory.

Constructive Feedback

Comments should help authors understand how the manuscript can be improved. Criticism should always be directed toward the manuscript and not toward the author.

Avoid:
“The discussion is weak.”

Prefer:
“The discussion summarizes the findings but does not sufficiently explain how they extend or challenge previous research. Please strengthen the analytical dialogue between the findings and the relevant literature.”

Avoid:
“The methods are unclear.”

Prefer:
“Please clarify how participants were selected, how the interviews were conducted, and how the data were analyzed so that readers can understand the analytical process.”

Confidentiality and Research Integrity

All manuscripts and associated review materials are confidential. Reviewers must not share the manuscript with unauthorized persons, use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage, contact authors directly regarding the manuscript, or disclose confidential information obtained through peer review.

If reviewers identify possible plagiarism, data manipulation, duplicate publication, ethical problems, copyright concerns, or other research-integrity issues, they must report them confidentially to the Handling Editor or editorial office. Reviewers should not independently investigate the authors.

Use of Artificial Intelligence

Manuscripts under peer review are confidential scholarly documents. Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, response letters, unpublished data, tables, figures, or other confidential review materials to public, unauthorized, or non-approved generative Artificial Intelligence systems. Generative AI must not replace the reviewer's independent scholarly judgment. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content, accuracy, confidentiality, objectivity, and integrity of their review reports.

Review Turnaround

Reviewers are normally requested to complete their review within four weeks of accepting the invitation. If a reviewer is unable to complete the assessment within the specified period, the reviewer should inform the Handling Editor or editorial office as early as possible so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

To preserve the journal's double-anonymous peer review process, reviewers must not include their name, institutional identity, signature, or other identifying information in comments intended for authors.

Final Checks

Before submitting your review, please confirm that:

You have provided a brief overall assessment.
You have identified the manuscript's strengths as well as its weaknesses.
You have clearly distinguished major and minor concerns.
Your comments are specific, understandable, and actionable.
You have explained what the authors need to revise.
Your comments focus on the manuscript rather than the authors.
You have avoided unnecessary requests for additional citations.
You have checked the relationship between the research questions, methods, findings, and conclusions.
Your recommendation is consistent with your comments.
Confidential concerns have been placed only in the section intended for the Handling Editor or editorial office.
You have maintained the confidentiality of the manuscript.
If this is a revised manuscript, you have focused on whether previous concerns were satisfactorily addressed.

Further Information

Reviewers are encouraged to consult the following HEUTAGOGIA policies and guidelines:

This Reviewer Guide has been developed for HEUTAGOGIA: Journal of Islamic Education and is informed by internationally recognized principles and good practices in scholarly peer review.

Reviewers Acknowledgment

As part of our commitment to transparency and best practices in scholarly publishing, HEUTAGOGIA: Journal of Islamic Education acknowledges scholars who have contributed to the peer review process. The journal applies a double-anonymous peer review model, ensuring that authors and reviewers remain anonymous during the review process. Reviewer acknowledgment is therefore provided only post-review and in a non-attributive manner, without identifying which manuscript was reviewed by a particular scholar.

We sincerely appreciate the critical and constructive feedback provided by the following reviewers. Their scholarly expertise and dedication contribute substantially to maintaining the academic rigor, integrity, and quality of the journal.